Re: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment - 3D versus 4D.
>Chris,
>
>I mostly agree with you, except for the terminology:
>
> > BTW I think endurantist and perdurantist are better terms than 3D and 4D as
> > what is at stake is a view on what change is (see, for example,
>Chap 8 of my
> > book).
I agree with Chris on this, and will continue to use that
terminology. Its easy to remember: endurantists are people who think
that things endure, ie retain their identity through time.
Perdurantists are the other guys.
>I prefer 3D and 4D for the following reasons:
>
> 1. They are immediately intelligible without a lot of further
> explanation.
Unfortunately, they are also immediately misunderstandable without a
lot of further explanation, and are indeed widely misunderstood
probably for this reason.
> 2. People can remember them.
>
> 3. The nature of change, causality, location, etc., are all
> important issues, and the terms 3D and 4D leave those issues
> unstated (which at this point, I believe they should).
>\
? I fail to follow you here. Surely this issue is entirely about
change, causality, etc.? If it were just a matter of geometry, then I
think everyone would be inclined to leave it to the mathematicians.
> 4. The people who invented and promoted the en- and per- terms have
> some metaphysical axes to grind that I don't fully agree with.
John, as the leading CSPeirce groupie, you can hardly object to the
use of terminology that was coined by people with metaphysical axes
to grind.
Pat
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(650)859 6569 w
(650)494 3973 h (until September)
phayes@ai.uwf.edu
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes